Lapeer ZBA denies variance request to extend 6-foot privacy fence at 48 Rosemary Street

The Lapeer Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request on June 12 that would have allowed Nicholas and Jessica Kane to extend a 6-foot privacy fence along the side/front setback of their corner lot at 48 Rosemary Street.

At the public hearing, Nicholas Kane, who identified himself as the applicant, told the board that his family moved to the Peppermill Estates subdivision recently and seeks the fence to create a secure dog run and protect his children and pets from increased pedestrian and vehicle activity at the corner. "Our goal is very simple, to create a safe and secure area for our family," Kane said during his remarks.

City planning staff reviewed the application and the zoning map, explaining that the parcel meets the city's definition of a corner lot and that the side street frontage is treated as a front yard under figure 15-2. Staff noted the zoning code allows ornamental fences of up to 3.5 feet in front yards and that a 6-foot privacy fence in the area the Kanes propose would require a variance because it does not meet the five criteria set out in section 7-22-0.04. The planner stated staff's recommendation was denial because the application, as submitted, did not satisfy those standards.

Board members questioned the setback measurements, the site diagram, and whether the city had previously permitted the existing fence configuration. Several members noted the city had issued a permit for the existing fence, which created a legal nonconformity; the planner and zoning attorney confirmed that an issued permit made the existing fence a legal nonconforming condition but did not automatically authorize the requested extension.

Members divided on how that earlier permit should affect their decision. Some argued the prior permit created a reasonable expectation that the homeowner could extend the fence; others said the extension must be judged on its own merits against the five statutory factors, and that permitting an extension would undermine the ordinance's intent to preserve sight lines and neighborhood character.

An anonymous letter and a written neighbor letter entered the record opposing the request on aesthetics and safety grounds; a separate letter from a nearby resident supported the Kanes' application and praised their maintenance of the property. The board also discussed possible compromise options such as different fence materials or a lesser variance, but legal counsel explained material or design changes would require a separate application.

After extended discussion and recitation of the five variance standards, a motion to deny the variance was made and seconded. On a roll-call vote, the board approved the motion to deny the variance, thereby rejecting the Kanes' request to extend a 6-foot privacy fence into the side/front setback. The board directed administration to notify the applicants in writing of the denial and the reasons for the decision.

Following the vote the board moved to other business, including referring proposed ZBA bylaws to the city attorney for review and receiving a training presentation from legal counsel on variance standards, findings of fact, and appeal procedures. The board set a follow-up meeting for July 27 and adjourned.